Agreed suspension of Corporal Richard Parslow

RECEIVED
CITY OF AUSTIN
CIVIL SERVICE OFFICE
OF
DEPARTMENT
JUNE 6, 2022
4:58 P.M.
FOUNDED
1839
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Joya Hayes, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Joseph Chacon, Chief of Police
DATE:
June 6, 2022
SUBJECT:
Agreed Suspension of Police Corporal Richard Parslow #6478
Internal Affairs Control Number 2022-0009
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code, Section
143.052, and Rule 10, Rules of Procedure for the Firefighters', Police Officers' and
Emergency Medical Service Personnel's Civil Service Commission, I have temporarily
suspended Police Corporal Richard Parslow #6478 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas
police officer for a period of sixty (60) days. The agreed temporary suspension is effective
beginning on June 7, 2022, and continuing through August 5, 2022.
1 took this action because Cpl. Parslow violated Civil Service Commission Rule 10.03,
which sets forth the grounds for disciplinary suspensions of employees in the classified
service, and states:
No employee of the classified service of the City of Austin shall engage in,
or be involved in, any of the following acts or conduct, and the same shall
constitute cause for suspension of an employee from the classified service
of the City:
L.
Violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Fire
Department or Police Department or of special orders, as
applicable.
1
The following are the specific acts committed by Corporal Parslow in violation of Rule 10:
On March 14, 2021, Senior Police Officer (SPO) Richard Parslow was promoted to the
rank of Corporal for. the Austin Police Department (APD). On March 28, 2021, he was
assigned to the South Patrol Bureau on the David 800s nightshift. His original Sergeant
established expectations for Cpl. Parslow. The Sergeant conveyed his expectations to Cpl.
Parslow in writing and verbally. Early on, his original Sergeant noticed Cpl. Parslow was
not meeting the expectations relayed to him. The original Sergeant documented these
shortcomings, in addition to counseling Cpl. Parslow several times. This included Cpl.
Parslow being counseled for not responding as a backup officer on calls.
A new Sergeant replaced the original Sergeant as the supervisor for the David 800s in
August 2021. During his time. with David 800s, the new Sergeant also noticed and
addressed similar conduct on the part of Cpl. Parslow. These repeated patterns were
brought to the attention of Cpl. Parslow's upper Chain-of-Command (COC).
Most recently, the new Sergeant noted an incident which occurred on December 12,
2021. This incident involved a priority one1, "Check Welfare Urgent" call located at
3012 South Congress Avenue. At the time this call was being dispatched, Cpl. Parslow
was located approximately one mile from 3012 South Congress Avenue and was clear2
and available for calls. Another officer from the David 800s responded to the location as
the primary officer. A second officer from outside the sector, located 4.9 miles away at
25th Street and Lamar Boulevard, responded as the backup officer. The new Sergeant,
who heard the incident unfold over radio traffic, sent Cpl. Parslow a message requesting
he back up the primary officer. Only after receiving the message did Cpl. Parslow
respond to the incident.
Thereafter, on January 5, 2022, Cpl. Parslow's Lieutenant submitted a complaint
memorandum requesting Internal Affairs (IA) conduct an investigation to determine if Cpl.
Parslow violated Department General Orders (GO), Civil Service Rules, and/or state law.
The complaint included allegations that on December 12, 2021, in connection with APD
Incident 21-3460280, Cpl. Parslow was in the area and failed to respond in a timely manner.
Additional information outlined in the complaint alleged that Cpl. Parslow had previously
been counseled for failing to respond as a backup officer in a timely manner on or about
March 30, 2021, April 18, 2021, and September 1, 2021. 3
In the early investigative phase, IA attempted to identify Cpl. Parslow's patrol vehicle and
conducted a search of his Body Worn Camera (BWC) check at the beginning of his
December 11-12, 2021, tour of duty. IA discovered Cpl. Parslow had not conducted a
required beginning of tour of duty check (10-41) on that day nor the entire month of
1 See page 3 for definitions of "priority" calls.
2 "Clear" is an acknowledgment of receipt and acknowledgement of understanding a message.
3 Although these are outside the 180-day deadline to impose a suspension, they show a pattern of behavior
in failing to timely respond as a backup officer, rather than a single, isolated incident.
2
December. This information was forwarded to Cpl. Parslow's COC, who generated an
additional complaint.
Relevant Definitions & General Orders (GO)/Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
Hot Shot (Priority 0) calls are incidents involving physical harm or injury to a
person or property and that is in progress and/or all parties are still on scene.
Officers responding to these calls should do so by activating their police vehicle
emergency lights and siren (Code 3). [APD G.O. 400.3.1]
Urgent (Priority 1) calls are incidents involving physical harm or a perceived
threat to any person or property, and that just occurred and/or suspects may still be
in the area, and where a quick response may aid in apprehension. Officers
responding to Priority I calls may do so by activating their police vehicle
emergency lights and limited use of the siren (Code 2). [APD G.O. 400.3.1]
APD G.O. 400.4 Assignment of Calls: "Hot Shot and Urgent calls require a two-
officer response and are generally dispatched by Communications to the two closest
available patrol officers. Officer safety and call priority shall be the primary
considerations when dispatching officers. Additional officers may self-assign using
the MDC, as necessary."
APD Corporal SOPs: "In addition to the sergeant, corporals are expected to
respond to any incident where it is important to preserve organizational
accountability and supervision. Incidents of this nature can include, but are not
limited to:
Incidents involving the loss of life or the threat of loss of life by violence
Incidents involving the serious injury of an officer or citizen.
Incidents and arrests which are high profile and/or may garner intense media
attention or public protest
At all other times, corporals are expected to respond to priority calls for service
when no other units are available.
Corporals shall respond to any call when requested.
Corporals should confer with their sergeant for specific directions and
expectations."
The December 12, , 2021, Incident
The IAD investigation determined that on December 12, 2021, at 3:45am, Cpl. Parslow
failed to make a call or respond as backup while he was available. On this occasion he was
less than a mile away from a "Priority 1 Check Welfare Urgent" call at 3012 South
Congress Avenue. APD Dispatch was required to find another officer from another Sector
(4.9 miles away) to make the backup, while Cpl. Parslow failed to make the backup.
Cpl. Parslow was the closest available officer. He was aware of the call, as he
added "Attempted Suicide" at 3:48am (a female that was believed to have
3
overdosed/poisoning [ingestion]) and he later added "CLR" in the call
history/CAD notes as he monitored from his patrol car.
Specifically, at 3:49am, the call was upgraded to a "Check Welfare Urgent"
after 911 received information that the female was "upset and talking about
killing herself, took a bunch of meds. At that time, Cpl. Parslow added "CLR"
to call history, indicating that he was clear on the "Priority 1" call as he
monitored from his patrol car.
At 3:50am, an officer was assigned to respond to the call by the David Sector
Dispatcher. No units were available in Henry, George, and Frank. No other
units were available at the time to back up the responding officer. Cpl. Parslow
made no attempt to respond, as the David Sector dispatcher began to check the
surrounding Sectors for a backup officer.
At 3:51 am, a Mounted Patrol Unit (MPU) assigned George Sector was assigned
to back up the responding officer.
At 3:52am, a Patrol Officer assigned to Baker Sector was assigned to the call to
replace the MPU assigned to George Sector. Despite the Baker Sector officer
responding from West 25th St. Lamar Boulevard (4.9 miles away), Cpl. Parslow
made no attempt to advise he was closer or that he was available to respond.
The new Sergeant stated over the David Radio to send the Baker Sector officer
back and that he would make the backup.
At 3:54am, the new Sergeant sent Cpl. Parslow a CAD message to ask "are you
tied up?" Cpl. Parslow replied "no." and then responded to the call.
It was not until new Sergeant contacted Cpl. Parslow directly that Cpl. Parslow
finally responded to the call at 3:54am.
When Cpl. Parslow was asked by IA (during his April 26, 2022, interview) if
he thought that the responding officer being on scene for a "Priority 1" call by
herself presented an officer safety issue. Cpl. Parslow advised "I'm thinking
possibly" and "Yes."
G.O. 303.3 Department Issued Body Worn Camera
In relation to the complaint regarding Cpl. Parslow failing to conduct beginning tour of
duty BWC checks, IA searched the Axon system for the year 2021. The search results
showed Cpl. Parslow consistently conducted "10-41" checks in the months of January
2021, February 2021, and March 2021, over 60 working days. Cpl. Parslow's last "10-41"
check was recorded on March 30, 2021, at 9:38pm. There were no other checks in the year
2021 after this date, including the entire month of December 2021.
Conclusion
Regarding the above timeline, Cpl. Parslow's COC concluded that he violated multiple
APD GOs on December 12, 2021. He engaged in this behavior in disregard of SOP's,
counseling sessions, directives, and admonishments by multiple supervisors. I concur
with the COC's recommendation that he be sustained for not adhering to multiple APD
4
SOP's along with violating GO's, 110.4.4 Insubordination, and multiple subsections of
900.4.3 Neglect of Duty, including but not limited to subsection (d) Failure to Respond to
Calls. I also concurred with their recommendation that he be sustained for GO 303.3
Department Issued Body Worn Camera. I also concluded he violated GO 900.4
Requirements of Duty.
In deciding the level of discipline, I gave consideration to the fact that Cpl. Parslow's
inaction on December 12, 2021, was inconsistent with the expectations that I and the City
have of all employees, particularly ones in a supervisory capacity. In fact, Cpl. Parslow
not only could and should have responded as the primary officer or as the backup officer,
but he should have responded as the Corporal to "demonstrate leadership and mentorship
by responding to and taking lead on serious, complex, high priority, or violent calls, as
spelled out in original Sergeant on March 29, 2021, expectations of him.
Additionally, in deciding the level of discipline, I gave consideration to the fact that Cpl.
Parslow acknowledged at his Disciplinary Review Hearing (DRH) that he should have
responded to the December 12, 2021, "Priority call" and his acknowledgement that he
violated the BWC GO.
By these actions, Cpl. Parslow violated Rule 10.03(L) of the Civil Service Rules by
violating the following rules and regulations of the Austin Police Department:
Austin Police Department Standard Operating Procedures
.01 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Police officers are called upon to handle a wide array of community issues from
traffic enforcement to homicide and domestic violence. Providing an effective
police response to public concerns is a top priority and is deeply rooted in the
history of our department. The inherent nature of the occupation feeds on
unpredictable situations, which precludes any attempt to author a procedural
catalogue that would be all-inclusive in scope. The requirement of our department
to grow and change to maintain an exemplary level of service is paramount to the
completion of a successful mission and to preserve community trust. This policy
will apply to any APD officer working a patrol function (e.g., traffic stops).
Austin Police Department Policy 900.4 REQUIREMENTS OF DUTY
Employee conduct will always be consistent with the Department's values,
vision, mission, and any supervisor's instructions.
(c)
Employees will consider themselves available for duty in any
emergency situation.
(f)
Employees are considered on-duty while on authorized breaks.
5
(g)
Employees will remain alert and observant while on-duty and devote
their time and attention to the business of the Department. Any
exceptions require supervisor approval.
Austin Police Department Standard Operating Procedures .05.G Personnel
Duties, Authority and Responsibilities: G. Breaks
2.
Officers will not take a break during shift change or any period of
high activity, unless approved by their sergeant.
6.
When out of the patrol unit, officers will monitor their radio and will
to calls when necessary.
Austin Police Department Standard Operating Procedures .05.A.2 Personnel
Duties, Authority and Responsibilities: Primary Responsibilities
2. Corporal
The Corporal responsibilities will include, but are not limited to:
a.
Corporals will exercise line command over the employees of their
assigned unit in the absence of the sergeant due to leave, training,
special assignment, or when the sergeant is not available (G.O.
110.2.6). Under this circumstance, the Corporal is responsible for
all of the Sergeant activities listed above in .05 A 1 except:
i. Corporals may not function as a supervisor/sergeant:
1. In Level 1 investigations (G.O. 211.5(e))
2. For pursuits with the following circumstances (G.O.
214.5.3):
a. When initiated by a sergeant or above, or
3. In LERE assignments (G.O. 949.3.2, 9494.7.2 (b)(3))
4. In an Overtime assignment (G.O. 110.2.6(d))
5. To complete annual employee evaluations (SSPRs) unless:
a. They are receiving higher class pay for an extended
period, and
b. Only when authorized by their respective Lieutenant.
ii. When not in the role of acting sergeant:
1. In addition to the sergeant, corporals are expected to respond
to any incident where it is important to preserve
organizational accountability and supervision. Incidents of
this nature can include, but are not limited to:
2. Incidents involving the loss of life or the threat of loss of life
by violence
3. Incidents involving the serious injury of an officer or citizen,
4. Incidents and arrests which are high profile and/or may
garner intense media attention or public protest
6
iii. At all other times, corporals are expected to respond to priority
calls for service when no other units are available
iv. Corporals shall respond to any call when requested.
V. Corporals should confer with their sergeant for specific
directions and expectations.
b.
Corporals may be given limited supervisory authority to support the
role of the sergeant and may perform tasks, inspections and duties
as assigned by their supervisor to include, but not limited to:
i. Conducting initial inquiries in R2R-Level 2 within chain of
command (G.O. 211.5e)
ii. Conducting inquiries in R2R-Level 3 and 4 incident (G.O.
211.5(e)3)
iii. Verifying classification for DMAV (G.O. 304.4)
iv. Approving certain arrests (G.O. 110.2.6, 319.1.1 and Patrol SOP
05. q)
1. Evading (Misdemeanor only)
2. Where the officer is the victim and neither the officer nor the
suspect have injuries requiring more than on-scene treatment
3. Fail to ID
4. Refusal to sign a ticket
5. Multiple traffic only
6. A full custody arrest meeting the requirement for a Class A
or B Misdemeanor Citation release
V.
Assume responsibility for pursuits when the Sergeant is not
available (G.O. 214.5.3 and 215.4.3(b))
vi.
Approving consent search when the Sergeant is not available
(G.O. 306.5.1)
vii. Approving release of prisoners from hospital in specific
situations (G.O. 321.4.2)
viii. Counseling subordinates on questions regarding incident
documentation (G.O. 402.1.1)
ix.
Conduct shift briefings trainings (G.O. 942.4.3)
X.
Conduct investigations and complete the supervisor's packet
for crashes involving officers (G.O.346.6)
xi.
Conduct Firearms investigations when it involves the humane
destruction of an injured animal (G.O. 202.3.1)
xii. Review incident reports for completeness and maintain report
queue as outlined for Patrol Case Management in Patrol SOPs
(G.O. 402.2.7, Patrol SOP (E)(6))
xiii. Ensure obedience to Orders (G.O. 110.4.3)
xiv. Monitor incidents via MDC
XV. Download TASER discharge information (G.O. 208.4.6)
xvi. Inspect:
1. Approved control devices (G.O. 206.2.3)
2. TASER functionality (G.O. 208.7)
3. TASER maintenance (G.O. 208.7.1)
7
4. Patrol vehicle audio/video (G.O. 303.3. and 304.4.)
5. Employees
6. Equipment
xvii. Attend community meetings/events that occur during their
shift and participate in community engagement efforts as call
load permits.
a
Austin Police Department Policy 110.4.4: Organizational Structure and
Responsibility: Insubordination
110.4.4 Insubordination
Employees will not be insubordinate. The willful disobedience of, or deliberate
refusal to obey any lawful order of a supervisor is insubordination. Defying the
authority of any supervisor by obvious disrespect, arrogant or disrespectful
conduct, ridicule, or challenge to orders issued is considered insubordination
whether done in or out of the supervisor's presence.
>
Austin Police Department Policy 900.4.3(d): General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Neglect of Duty
900.4.3(d) Neglect of Duty
Employees will satisfactorily perform their duties. Examples of unsatisfactory
performance include, but are not limited to:
(a)
Lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be
enforced.
(b)
Unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks.
(c)
Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime,
disorder, investigation or other condition deserving police
attention.
(d)
Failure to respond to any call or to perform any police duties
assigned to them by appropriate authorities.
(f)
Repeated poor evaluations.
(g)
Written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations,
directives or orders of the Department.
(h)
Failure to follow department standardized training and tactics
when it was objectively reasonable to do so.
8
Austin Police Department Policy 303.3: Body Worn Camera System:
Department Issued Body Worn Camera
303.3 Department Issued Body Worn Camera
BWC equipment is to be used primarily by uniformed personnel as authorized per
assignment by the Department and must be used unless otherwise authorized by a
Commander or above.
(b)
Employees equipped with a Department issued BWC system must
be trained in the operation of the equipment prior to its use. BWC
equipment will be used in accordance with Department training and
the BWC operations manual
(d)
Employees shall ensure that their BWC equipment has adequate
battery charge and storage space to complete their regular tour of
duty.
1.
Employees assigned to the units below are required to power
on the device at the beginning of their tour of duty and not
power the device off until the end of that tour of duty.
(a)
Patrol
3.
Employees not engaged in a law enforcement action shall
power the device off or remove it from their body when using
a restroom, locker room, changing room, or any other location
where the employee has an expectation of privacy.
Immediately upon exiting such a facility or room, the
employee shall ensure the BWC equipment is powered back
on and appropriately placed according to this order.
(e)
Employees shall test the BWC equipment at the commencement of
their tour of duty and shall categorize the video as '10-41'.
(f)
The BWC equipment test shall consist of employees recording the
following:
1.
Employee name;
2.
Employee number; and
3.
The current date and time.
(g)
Employees shall review the recording to verify the BWC
microphone is operational, and the date and time is accurate.
9
In addition to this agreed temporary suspension, Cpl. Parslow agrees to the following terms
and conditions:
1.
Cpl. Parslow shall attend any training specified by his Chain-of-Command
2.
Cpl. Parslow agrees to a probationary period of one (1) year, with the
additional requirement that if, during the probationary period, he commits
the same or a similar act of misconduct for which he is being suspended (the
determination whether an act is the same or similar is solely within the
purview of the Chief of Police and is not subject to review by the Civil
Service Commission, an Independent Third Party Hearing Examiner, or
District Court), he will be indefinitely suspended without the right to appeal
that suspension to the Civil Service Commission, an Independent Third
Party Hearing Examiner, and to District Court. The one-year period begins
on the day Cpl. Parslow returns to duty after completing his agreed
suspension. Should Cpl. Parslow commit the same or similar violation
outside the one-year period, he will be indefinitely suspended but retains
the right to appeal that suspension.
3.
Cpl. Parslow understands that this temporary suspension may be taken into
consideration in the Chief's determination whether a valid reason exists to
bypass him for a future promotion in accordance with APD Policy 919.11.
4.
Cpl. Parslow agrees that he, and all others claiming under him named herein
or not, fully discharge, release and waive any and all known or unknown
claims or demands of any kind or nature whatsoever that he now has, or
may have in the future, including without limitations, claims arising under
any federal, state or other governmental statute, regulation, or ordinance
relating to employment discrimination, termination of employment,
payment of wages or provision of benefits, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, the Family and Medical Leave Act,
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights
Act, against the City of Austin, the Austin Police Department, or their
respective agents, servants and employees, arising from the above-
referenced incident, and any actions taken as a result of that incident,
including but not limited to, the negotiation and execution of this agreed
temporary suspension.
5.
Cpl. Parslow acknowledges that he had the opportunity to discuss this
agreed suspension and additional terms and conditions set forth herein with
a representative of his choosing prior to signing his acceptance where
indicated below.
10
By signing this Agreed Discipline, Cpl. Parslow understands and agrees that I am forgoing
my right to indefinitely suspend him for the conduct described above and that by agreeing
to the suspension, Cpl. Parslow waives all right to appeal this agreed suspension and the
additional terms and conditions to the Civil Service Commission, to an Independent Third-
Party Hearing Examiner, and to District Court.
pip
JOSEPN.CHACON, Chief of Police
Date
6/16/2022
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I acknowledge receipt of the above and foregoing memorandum of agreed temporary
suspension and I understand that by entering into this disciplinary agreement the Chief
forgoes his right to indefinitely suspend me for the conduct described above and that by
agreeing to the suspension, I have no right to appeal this disciplinary action, as well as the
additional terms and conditions, to the Civil Service Commission, to an Independent Third-
Party Hearing Examiner, and to District Court.
n't 2pu
6/4/2022
Police Corporal Richard Parslow #6478
Date
11